United States v. 2020-09-04 | 17-16868 | NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC V. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition | et al.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,

Plaintiff-counter-
defendant-Appellee,

v.

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,

Defendant-counter-claimant-
Appellant.

No. 17-16868

D.C. No.
2:15-cv-00583-RCJ-PAL

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 2, 2020
**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KENDALL,
***
District
Judge.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

***
The Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
FILED

SEP 4 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-16868
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC appeals the district court’s adverse grant of
summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the
grant of summary judgment de novo, see Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d
509, 515 (9th Cir. 2018), and we vacate and remand.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC filed the underlying complaint seeking to establish
that its deed of trust on a particular real property in Nevada survived a homeowners
association foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to Chapter 116 of the Nevada
Revised Statutes. Relying on our decision in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the district court granted judgment
in favor of Nationstar. As Nationstar concedes, the Nevada Supreme court has
rejected Bourne Valley’s interpretation of the statutory scheme, and Nationstar was
not entitled to judgment on the basis that the governing Nevada statute contained an
unconstitutional opt-in notice provision. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W.
Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2019) (discussing SFR
Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)).
Prior to issuing the final judgment relying on Bourne Valley, the district court
determined that there were several triable issues. We decline the parties’ requests to
affirm or reverse on alternative grounds and instead “exercise our power to remand”
to the district court for further proceedings. See Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home
Mortg., Inc., 635 F.3d 401, 408 (9th Cir. 2011).

3 17-16868
SFR’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 49) is denied as moot.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.